Thoughts on 4k gaming

[telboy121]

New to the forums but a few thoughts i have on 4k
I sold a pair of 980 ti cards a while back as i want to get the new 1180 cards
but tbh they ran 4k at abit at very high high settings very well
on a phillips 60 Hz monitor im no pro gamer but i enjoyed playing on that setup
now i am thinking maybe go with just one 1080 ti and maybe 1440 res
i do not see alot of difference when looking at the screen tbh!
on a 1440 res , any thoughts guys?

 

[PeterScott]

IMO 1440p is a very good sweet spot. It is what I am looking for in my next monitor.

 

[Not So Mild]

I went with 1440p. From what I've seen, it's too hard to drive 4k at 144 fps with high settings. Those are the conditions I wanted, so I went with 1440p with my 1080ti.

I think it's too early to speculate on 1180. A lot of people with disagree and say that you already know what to expect from it, but I disagree. If I were in your shoes, I'd wait until next gen cards launch, some decent reviews go up, and then see if 4k will work for you.

 

[wilds]

1440p144hz is a great res. 4k60 is good too. why not both?

 

[alcoholbob]

If you are just gaming, 144Hz 1440p makes more sense. If you are using your computer for other stuff, for example UHD blu rays, and media consumption, I would lean towards 4K60, especially because large 4K60 computer monitors are a lot more common than a big 1440p screen.

 

[Carfax83]

What about those ultra widescreen monitors, 3440x1440p 21:9? I'm thinking about purchasing one of them, instead of going 4K because of the extra screen space, higher refresh rates and more moderate resolution. Not So Mild is right, 4K is still too heavy for current GPUs. The next crop of GPUs should be able to handle 4K much better, but I'm not sure they will master the resolution.

 

[FreshBross]

Ultrawide 1440p monitors are an interesting gaming choice. I quite enjoyed mine, but recently switched to a 27" 4k for 144hz refresh rate.

The ultrawide gives you more peripheral vision, you actually see more of what's there sideways, and it doesn't strain your neck because the eye line remains low. Where as with some larger but regular widescreen monitors, bigger than 27" and you start to have to tilt your eyes upwards to catch the top of the screen.

 

[telboy121]

i think with the 40" screen it scales better with windows

 

[ozzy702]

Until 4k HDR, 100+hz monitors are widely available and for a reasonable price (2021?) I'll probably stick with my 1440p 144hz IPS monitor.

 

[Grubbernaught]

Moved from 3x Asus Swift 144hz 1440p to 4k60 HDR on a 55" Samsung Q7F....I'm never going back to the 1440p.

If you can run 4k60 HDR actually at 60fps it is a thing of beauty on a decent sized screen...bring on the nvidia 60" version I say.. because 120hz gsync at that res and size WILL BE EPIC.

 

[Hans Gruber]

I have a TCL 43S405 4k for my setup. It's something to hold me over for the next couple of years. Much better than 1080P and has Roku built in. If Nvidia or AMD release an embedded 4k decoder on their graphics cards. That would be a game changer without the need of the GPU wasting cycles to decode a 4k image.

 

[Brahmzy]

Gaming 4K on a 43” is glorious. Nothing better IMO.
Total immersion for gaming and productivity.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Unless you go HDR, 4k isn't really that special. You can do HDR at lower resolutions, nothing says you can't but it's pretty much a feature that you get from TVs which usually don't like 1440p well. So if you're gonna do 4k HDR I say go for it. If just 4k alone then I'd get a higher refresh rate monitor.

 

[gdansk]

It looks pretty good. A surprising number of games that I own are solid 60 FPS or higher at 4K. It's especially noticeable with strategy games. Is it worth the cost? No.

 

[Brahmzy]

Unless you go HDR, 4k isn't really that special. You can do HDR at lower resolutions, nothing says you can't but it's pretty much a feature that you get from TVs which usually don't like 1440p well. So if you're gonna do 4k HDR I say go for it. If just 4k alone then I'd get a higher refresh rate monitor.

Highly disagree. Tons of happy 4K, big display users out there. You’re obviously not one...
Playing 4K on a 27” screen isn’t special.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Highly disagree. Tons of happy 4K, big display users out there. You’re obviously not one...
Playing 4K on a 27” screen isn’t special.

Firstly I think 4k alone is crap without HDR. Not because it’s worse than another resolution but resolution by itself isn't enough difference at normal seating distances. It's been shown to be the case in blind tests that people viewing 1080p content and normal distances don't see the shift to 4k by itself. Only when you add wide color gamut and high dynamic range do most people actually see the difference. This is why 4k content hardly existed until HDR came along. There have been 4k TVs as far back as 2013 but nobody remembers them. Second I've been gaming on a 4k HDR TV for years now and am currently on a 65" LG OLED. I know all about what it's like to do gaming on a big screen(big is relative anyway, this is big compared to a monitor). Third I never mentioned display size and neither did the OP. For all we know he has specific size requirements and that would eliminate using an HDR TV as the display. My opinion is that 4k isn't a big deal unless you also have HDR and I think 4k HDR monitors are overpriced for what you get. Rather just get a decent HDR TV and use that personally. If you are going for a TV with 4k HDR then cool but if not I suggest 1440p @ high refresh rates until 4k HDR monitors are more reasonable in pricing.

 

[Brahmzy]

^^LOL clueless!

I’ve got a high end 75” FALD with crazy bright HDR. I’ve been eyeballs deep in the HDR/4K thing longer than you I’m sure.
I have tons of ripped UHD BDs. I know all about 4K sets, near field/far field distances etc. Gaming nearfield on a 43” 4K and watching movies on my HT are two very different things. 4K nearfield on a 43” is absolutely awesome with or without HDR. 2160p is superior to 1440p regardless of HDR.
LOL! Get a clue man. “4K is worthless without HDR” GTFO

 

[PlanetJosh]

Firstly I think 4k alone is crap without HDR. Not because it’s worse than another resolution but resolution by itself isn't enough difference at normal seating distances. It's been shown to be the case in blind tests that people viewing 1080p content and normal distances don't see the shift to 4k by itself. Only when you add wide color gamut and high dynamic range do most people actually see the difference.

Were the tests done watching some popular demanding games? For example in Witcher 3 (and 2) I notice more texture detail in 4k than in 1080 sitting at the proper distance with no HDR.

So now we get to the wide color gamut consideration. That without it people wouldn't notice any difference. I'm assuming you meant that HDR doesn't have to be added. I know you said "wide color gamut and high dynamic range" but I think in context maybe you also meant "or high dynamic range." If you meant HDR must be added to wide color gamut then never mind this post. I'm just trying to address your wide color gamut comment as best I can.

So to continue, monitors with wide color gamut are popular and that may make it hard for me to disprove the results of the tests you described. I'd have to take the tests myself looking at games and movies on monitors without a wide color gamut vs ones with it like I assume they did in those tests. Or simply decide whether or not believe the tests you mentioned based on whatever other tests on the subject I can find on the web.

So can anyone provide a counter argument to the claim that wide color gamut is a main reason people notice a difference between 4k and 1080? Assuming HDR isn't needed. I'm hoping someone does find counter arguments since I prefer 4k. But I'm not having much luck finding such tests on Google. I know the tests have been done as mentioned above but hard to find in my casual searching. This reply is far longer than I'd like but I tend to write wordy stuff. I guess I don't have the conciseness of other posters.

And I'm still not done yet. Going back to my Witcher 2 and 3 comments and applying them to the tests that people took. I'm assuming that on monitors without wide color gamut the people did not notice any increase in detail in 4k vs 1080. Meaning the textures looked about the same in quality. Not saying I believe the results. But that's the kind of test results I was trying to find on the net. And for any counter tests to those tests.

 

[Midwayman]

Were the tests done watching some popular demanding games? For example in Witcher 3 (and 2) I notice more texture detail in 4k than in 1080 sitting at the proper distance with no HDR.

Those tests are typically done with video and based on the typical angular resolution of the human eye. For normal TV viewing distances you need a fairly large set to get above the angular resolution where 4k makes a difference to a person with 20/20 eyesight.

FWIW some people have better than 20/20, sit close, have huge TVs etc so YYMV. Still 4k gaming isn't worth it yet. Until high refresh displays that support ULMB and gsync are reasonable prices I don't really care. The cost of hardware to run 4k well is kinda high right now as well. I think we're still a few years out for it being worthwhile to anyone but the money is no object crowd.

 

[Hans Gruber]

I spent $230 on a 43" 4K set with built in Roku. Pricey stuff I know.

 

[Midwayman]

I spent $230 on a 43" 4K set with built in Roku. Pricey stuff I know.

I guess if you're happy with a garbage tier monitor. There is a large price difference between the cheapest 1440p monitor and a gaming high refresh monitor that supports variable refresh. Weird choice if you've spent the $$$ on a 1080Ti really needed to drive 4k reasonably. 4k just for productivity is another discussion.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Were the tests done watching some popular demanding games? For example in Witcher 3 (and 2) I notice more texture detail in 4k than in 1080 sitting at the proper distance with no HDR.

So now we get to the wide color gamut consideration. That without it people wouldn't notice any difference. I'm assuming you meant that HDR doesn't have to be added. I know you said "wide color gamut and high dynamic range" but I think in context maybe you also meant "or high dynamic range." If you meant HDR must be added to wide color gamut then never mind this post. I'm just trying to address your wide color gamut comment as best I can.

So to continue, monitors with wide color gamut are popular and that may make it hard for me to disprove the results of the tests you described. I'd have to take the tests myself looking at games and movies on monitors without a wide color gamut vs ones with it like I assume they did in those tests. Or simply decide whether or not believe the tests you mentioned based on whatever other tests on the subject I can find on the web.

So can anyone provide a counter argument to the claim that wide color gamut is a main reason people notice a difference between 4k and 1080? Assuming HDR isn't needed. I'm hoping someone does find counter arguments since I prefer 4k. But I'm not having much luck finding such tests on Google. I know the tests have been done as mentioned above but hard to find in my casual searching. This reply is far longer than I'd like but I tend to write wordy stuff. I guess I don't have the conciseness of other posters.

And I'm still not done yet. Going back to my Witcher 2 and 3 comments and applying them to the tests that people took. I'm assuming that on monitors without wide color gamut the people did not notice any increase in detail in 4k vs 1080. Meaning the textures looked about the same in quality. Not saying I believe the results. But that's the kind of test results I was trying to find on the net. And for any counter tests to those tests.

The color gamut comes with HDR too and in the case of HDR it's been a TV only thing for a long time. Only pretty recently have any monitors targeted toward PC usage been available with it. I'm not even sure their quality is on par with a TV of similar pricing to be honest. So in that context I am totally referring to TV environments where you sit about 6 feet from a 55-65" set. Some people even sit further away than that which I think ruins the immersion and even further reduces the resolution benefits. I'm not talking about your face being a couple feet from a 32" monitor which is a different environment. I know of no tests done with monitors besides text being sharper as you increase resolution. It's more the video environment where the benefits of resolution alone aren't readily apparent until you add the benefit of HDR. Again this is why 4k content was lacking until HDR arrived, the average consumer didn't have a 4k display and probably didn't even see any benefit to it.

With anything though costs come down, technology matures and adoption rate grows. Again I must reiterate that I'm not saying 4k is bad, unlike what one poster seems to believe. I'm saying I don't find the resolution alone reason enough to move to 4k. If you add HDR to the mix then it's a big step up and worth the investment if you have the hardware to go with it. If it comes down to cost I think a 1440p high refresh rate monitor with gsync/freesync is a better buy purely from a PC gaming standpoint.

 

[cmdrdredd]

^^LOL clueless!

I’ve got a high end 75” FALD with crazy bright HDR. I’ve been eyeballs deep in the HDR/4K thing longer than you I’m sure.
I have tons of ripped UHD BDs. I know all about 4K sets, near field/far field distances etc. Gaming nearfield on a 43” 4K and watching movies on my HT are two very different things. 4K nearfield on a 43” is absolutely awesome with or without HDR. 2160p is superior to 1440p regardless of HDR.
LOL! Get a clue man. “4K is worthless without HDR” GTFO

I had a first gen HDR TV, as in the first day HDR was available in any format I was able to take advantage of it. I also had a UHD BD player the day of launch (Samsung K8500) so no, I doubt you've been doing it longer than I. It's funny though how bent out of shape you get when I tell someone that 4k HDR TVs are great but PC monitors with HDR are overpriced and I feel for a monitor to be used for PC gaming I feel the refresh rate is more important than pure resolution if you can't also bring HDR in because of cost concerns.

Those tests are typically done with video and based on the typical angular resolution of the human eye. For normal TV viewing distances you need a fairly large set to get above the angular resolution where 4k makes a difference to a person with 20/20 eyesight.

FWIW some people have better than 20/20, sit close, have huge TVs etc so YYMV. Still 4k gaming isn't worth it yet. Until high refresh displays that support ULMB and gsync are reasonable prices I don't really care. The cost of hardware to run 4k well is kinda high right now as well. I think we're still a few years out for it being worthwhile to anyone but the money is no object crowd.

For me I had an HDR tv already and just needed the hardware to drive games at 4k. A 1080ti is just about there for the most part. There are some games that still don't quite reach 60fps with max settings which is what I think is ideal. Sometimes have to trade off something to keep the framerate, depending on the title.

 

[Hans Gruber]

I guess if you're happy with a garbage tier monitor. There is a large price difference between the cheapest 1440p monitor and a gaming high refresh monitor that supports variable refresh. Weird choice if you've spent the $$$ on a 1080Ti really needed to drive 4k reasonably. 4k just for productivity is another discussion.

It's not a garbage tier monitor. Rtings.com gave it a very good review not just as a tv but as a monitor. TCL 43S405 is the model. It's a $300 set but I got it for $230 because I am a savvy shopper. It's the value model from China's #2 brand in the TV market. Like I said in my previous post. I should last me a couple of years while the market decides where the computer gaming industry will go.

 

[Midwayman]

For me I had an HDR tv already and just needed the hardware to drive games at 4k. A 1080ti is just about there for the most part. There are some games that still don't quite reach 60fps with max settings which is what I think is ideal. Sometimes have to trade off something to keep the framerate, depending on the title.

The issue with even the 1080ti is that its 'almost' there without making compromises. The frame rate is at a point where variable sync is super useful and those are still very expensive. If you don't have variable sync you really want 70-80fps just so you're not popping down to 30hz all the time or tearing which is really noticeable at lower frame rates. Just part of why I think 4k is still a couple years out of prime time. Personally if I wanted more space I'd do 21:9 1440p. Easier to drive and most of the benefits of going 4k. Plus if you really need to you can run it at straight QHD and still maintain 1:1 pixel ratio.